By using the PLATFORM FOR KNOWLEDGE EXCHANGE website of the JA-CHRODIS you agree our use of cookies as described in our cookie policy.

In this section you can find tools and resources to guide you through the quality assessment of integrated care programs and public health practices. 



The ACIC was developed in 2000 by the MacColl Institute for Healthcare Innovation (USA) through a rigorous trial and evaluation process. It is strongly aligned with the Wagner Improving Chronic Care Model.
A practical quality-improvement tool to help organizations evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of their delivery of care for chronic.  The ACIC (version 3.5) has 34 questions divided into seven sections. There is one section for each of the six elements of the Wagner Model and a seventh section to assess the integration of these elements, which recognizes their interdependence. Once completed and scored the tool rates each of the seven sections as limited, basic, good or excellent support for chronic illness care.
For more information, visit:
Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (ACIC)



The EQUIHP has been developed as a European consensus tool, facilitating the assessment and improvement of quality in health promotion [ Project, NIGZ and VIG. The Getting Evidence into Practice Project, (Evidence Consortium, GEP, Grant agreement no 2003123 (790841)]. The aim is to obtain more uniformity in quality indices and to facilitate cross-national comparisons and collaboration in enhancing quality in health promotion projects. It can be used throughout the process of planning, implementing and/or assessing a project.
The criteria for assessment are clustered into four topics, identifying the areas that are considered essential to achieve quality for effective health promotion: (I) the framework of health promotion principles, (II) aspects regarding project development and implementation, (III) aspects regarding project management, and (IV) sustainability. For each of these areas or ‘clusters’, a number of criteria have been formulated, as well as indicators to measure these criteria.
For more information, visit:
Reference: Getting Evidence into Practice Project, NIGZ and VIG. The Getting Evidence into Practice Project, (Evidence Consortium, GEP, Grant agreement no 2003123 (790841))



It is an instrument for health and social care organizations to perform a self-assessment in terms of their degree of implementation of chronic care management models. IEMAC/ ARCHO is based on the CCM (“Chronic Care Model”) and has been designed particularly for a national health system context. It enables the assessment of organizations at macro level (formulating policies and strategies and allocating resources), meso level (management of organizations, health and social care centres and programmes) and micro level (clinical activity between professionals and patients). Developed by a collaboration of Universitas Miguel Hernandez  Instituto Vasco de Innovación Sanitaria, O+Berri. País Vasco, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Departament de Salut of Catalunya.
The Chronic Care Model pinpoints the essential elements required by healthcare services to offer quality care to the chronically ill. The instrument includes 6 basic elements: the organization of the healthcare system, the community, the provision of care, patient self-care, decision-making tools and information systems.  IEMAC/ARCHO also includes additional perspectives to advance on the reorientation of health and social policies and services to prevent the development of chronic disease and provide integrated quality care to people with these conditions.
For more information, visit:



Tools developed to assess the quality of chronic illness care delivery from the patient perspective. There are two versions:  the 20-item PACIC and the 26-item PACIC+.  PACIC is a brief, 20-item validated patient self-report instrument assessing the extent to which patients with chronic illness receive care that aligns with the Chronic Care Model.  The PACIC+ is a 26-item version of the PACIC, and contains an additional, sixth subscale, Multi-Disciplinary Team Functions.
The PACIC measures specific actions or qualities of care, congruent with the Chronic Care Model that patients have experienced in the delivery system. The survey includes 20 items and when paired with the ACIC, these tools can provide complementary consumer and provider assessments of important aspects of care for chronic illness patients.
The PACIC + includes the same 20 items as the PACIC but adds six items to the original instrument. The items are derived from the '5As' model (ask, advise, agree, assist, and arrange), a patient-centered model of behavioural counselling that is congruent with the CCM and has been frequently used to enhance self-management support and linkages to community resources.  The PACIC+ combines these with existing PACIC items, thus permitting scoring of five-item subscales on the delivery of each of the '5As', as well as an overall 5As score.
For more information, visit:


This evaluation framework, developed by the Centers for disease control and prevention (CDC), gives public health professionals a starting point for evaluating public health programs.
The evaluation includes six connected steps documents that can be used as a starting point to tailor an evaluation for a particular public health effort, at a particular point in time. The website describes specific activities and best practices for each step. On the site, there is also a list of suggestions for maximizing the usefulness and reach of evaluation reports.
The six steps are:
Engage stakeholders, including those involved in program operations; those served or affected by the program; and primary users of the evaluation.
Describe the program, including the need, expected effects, activities, resources, stage, context and logic model.
Focus the evaluation design to assess the issues of greatest concern to stakeholders while using time and resources as efficiently as possible. Consider the purpose, users, uses, questions, methods and agreements.
Gather credible evidence to strengthen evaluation judgments and the recommendations that follow. These aspects of evidence gathering typically affect perceptions of credibility: indicators, sources, quality, quantity and logistics.
Justify conclusions by linking them to the evidence gathered and judging them against agreed-upon values or standards set by the stakeholders. Justify conclusions on the basis of evidence using these five elements: standards, analysis/synthesis, interpretation, judgment and recommendations.
Ensure use and share lessons learned with these steps: design, preparation, feedback, follow-up and dissemination, as well as a checklist of items to consider when developing evaluation reports.
For more information, visit:
PPEO evaluation program
PPEO Engage stakeholders
PPEO Describing the program
PPEO Evaluation design
PPEO Gathering credible evidence
PPEO Justifying conclusions
PPEO Ensuring use and final lessons
PPEO Reports checklist



QIP (Quality in Prevention) is a comprehensive quality improvement and evidence-based questionnaire for health promotion and prevention HIV projects. The questionnaire can also be used as a guide for the self-assessment of projects, programs or strategies. QIP has been quality checked, tested in practice and adapted to the context of HIV prevention. It was developed in close partnership between the Federal Centre for Health Education (BZgA) and the University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE) in Germany.
QIP is a quality improvement tool that uses 7 quality assurance dimensions with 22 sub dimensions. It helps to ensure that prevention work is implemented in a targeted, effective and sustainable way. QIP is more comprehensive and detailed than Succeed and includes an external assessment and it is also available in different languages.
QIP focuses on key components for effectiveness in prevention and health promotion: project description and concept; personnel and their qualifications; target groups (beneficiaries and intermediaries); planning and preparation; dissemination and promotion; process design and results. It uses yes-/-no or multiple choice questions where possible. It also uses open questions to stimulate responses on specific areas so that information about every aspect of the project or program is documented.
For more information, visit:




Quality system Quint-essenz has been funded and developed by Health Promotion Switzerland. Part of their work has been developing set of criteria for systematic project quality assessment, specifically for intervention projects in health promotion and prevention. It has been developed in partnership with scientist and practitioners to systematically reflect and evaluate intervention projects during their different phases, identify strengths and potential for improvement, determine priority areas where improvement in the project is necessary and set goals for quality and to define measures for improvement.

The core of the system constitutes 24 quality criteria that are corroborated in terms of indicators which identify strengths and weaknesses, determine priority areas and define measures for improvement and make project’s qualities visible. An initial assessment is needed to determine which criteria and indicators are the most relevant for a project at a specific point in time (project design, implementation or valorisation). 

For more information, visit:

Quality System Quint-Essenz



The SUCCEED tool is designed primarily for organizations implementing HIV health promotion and prevention projects. It allows professional, representatives from the target group and other important stakeholders to jointly review the work and improve it during project implementation. Succeed is based on scientific research about success factors in the field of health promotion and it has been specifically adapted for use in HIV prevention. It can be used either to review existing interventions or to review a plan for a new one. The Succeed tool is also available in different languages.  It has been developed by Joint Action on Improving Quality in HIV Prevention (Quality Action), which has received funding from the European Union within the framework of the Health Program.
It uses a straightforward questionnaire to capture critical data points about the quality of a project. Positive responses to questions indicate a project has a reasonable structure and is being run in a way that should lead to good quality results. Negative answers tend to indicate the opposite, or at least point to shortcomings in planning and/or implementation. These are things that need to improve.
The SUCCEED tool addresses three widely-recognized aspects of work on quality improvement: Structure, Process, and Results. The structure covers how operations and resources are organised it has six sub-sections: 1) Goals, 2) Key Population(s), 3) Approach, 4) Responsibility, 5) Organisation and 6) Resources.
Process refers to the activities carried out in the project; it has three sub-sections: 1) Support and Participation, 2) Networks and 3) Reach & Response.
Results are outcomes that can be counted or concretely described and identified; it has three sub-sections: 1) Measuring Effects, 2) Environmental, Operational & Social Changes and 3) Sustainability.
For more information, visit: